*1 222, appeals 1976), A.2d (Md. Co. Roofing Bros. process requirements and due creditor remedies discussing in Maryland 337, U.S. 23 L. Corp., 395 Family Finance as announced Sniadach v. 556, Shevin, 67, 32 L. Ed. 2d 349, 89 1820, 407 U.S. Ed. 2d Fuentes 406, Co., U.S. L. Ed. 2d T. 92 Ct. v. W. Grant S. Mitchell Di-Chem, Inc., 419 Georgia Finishing, Inc. 94 S. Ct. and North S. U.S. 42 L. Ed. 2d 95 Ct. observed: Fuentes, Sniadach, Mitchell and North glean “What we from circumstances, that, lacking extraordinary Finishing is Georgia temporarily which even statutory prejudgment creditor remedies without notice significant property of a interest debtor are, hearing as opportunity prior probable-cause-type Fuentes, under Fourteenth held unconstitutional such those safeguards clause unless Amendment’s present Georgia Finishing in Mitchell North mentioned clear, may invalid if then, law be although is less even susceptible are not underlying seizure issues if the not have documentary or creditor does uncomplicated proof 222, 231.) (353 A.2d present property seized.” interest deprivation possession I since agree with such observation and interest, common law lien obviously significant property the so-called pass muster. cannot constitutional KNIGHT, Friend, Minor, Joseph Knight, his Next KEVIN Father and J. v. BOARD OF
Plaintiff-Appellant, OF TRI-POINT EDUCATION al., et SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Defendants- COMMUNITY UNIT 6J Union, Curiae; Appellees. (American Illinois Civil Liberties Amicus — Education, Curiae.) Amicus No. 13080 Fourth District May Opinion filed *2 CRAVEN, J., dissenting. Strock, Hirst, Law Faraday (Ronald counsel), Offices of of Pontiac V. for J.
appellant. Strong, Pontiac, Kеnneth L. Thompson Strong, appellees. and Eglit, Bowen Tucker and Chicago, Howard both of for amicus American curiae Civil Liberties Union. Kerr,
Gary Adviser, Education, E. Legal Assistant of Illinois Office of for amicus curiae Illinois State Board of Education. Mr. opinion GREEN the court: delivered JUSTICE minor, friend, Knight, brought Plaintiff Kevin his and next father J.
suit in Livingston County seeking declaratory the Circuit Court of injunctive against relief defendants Board of Education of Tri-Point Anderson, Community Unit William E. School District No. Glenn 6J: Malone, Harms, Metz, Malone, George Haley, Roy Leon H. Donald McGinnis, Thomas V. Tri- individually, and as the Board of Point Unit and E. Community 6J; Jackson; School District No. Howard A was Lesley Conkling. complaint motion defendants to dismiss the merits, trial court entered After a bench trial on the denied. relief. requested all denying for the defendants judgment Liberties court, American Civil this Pursuant to leave of appeals. have of Education Union, Division, Illinois State Board and the Illinois be reversed. judgment that the suggesting briefs amicus curiae filed during the high school at the defendant district’s Plaintiff was a senior 25 and April classes on year. 1973-74 school He did not attend plaintiff’s the absences. did not excuse school administration excuse these trial, that the refusal to complaint and at he contended law under the deprived procedural process him of due absences appeal, position on and Federаl constitutions. He has abandoned imposed consequences relying rather on his other contentions to excuse him as a result of the refusal of the school administration equal him of law deprived the absences of substantive I, Amendment and article protection contrary of law to the Fourteenth his of 1970 and otherwise violated section of the Illinois Constitution absent, district legal rights. days plaintiff On the the defendant school following regulation: had force the absence, makeup
“Under an work shall be done unexcused grade per without credit and shall be lowered one letter class.” two letter alleged plaintiff’s grades were lowered *3 policy.
grades per quarter year class for the final of the as a result of the Jackson, the district requested that defendants superintendent, by be ordered writ of Conkling, principal, the school quarter mandamus without plaintiff’s grades recomputed to have for absences; being given that the old be ordered consideration to the and that all expunged; policy set forth in the rule be declared void enjoined enforcing defendants be from the rule. in business
During quarter question, plaintiff the school was enrolled products and “food English, photography, physical education at a taught vocational management and service.” The latter course not consider the for that cоurse did nearby center at Pontiac. The teacher three in the other grading plaintiff. The teachers unexcused absences absences, unexcused the school rule on courses testified because of courses. letters their plaintiff’s grade one but not two lowered D, C, C to English B- from to business photography grade was lowered B C. physical education a serious truancy considered that he testified Defendant Jackson best method rеduction grade and that he considered problem corporal considered truancy. He impose to combat sanction further He unworkable. drastic and to be too suspension punishment and of the 80% because unworkable detention was that after-school stated students transported were to and by from school buses and that it would be difficult provide transportation for the detainees. Langan, James superintendent district, an adjаcent testified that he also considered truancy problem, to be a serious with, difficult to deal and that he felt that a policy reduction applicable school rule to all rather than a discretionary application by each teacher was the best method of problem. handling Midkiff, Kenneth co-ordinator of student affairs for the office of the State superintendent public instruction, on the other hand, testified that he considered poor the rule to be policy educational and that a more reasonable method imposing truancy sanctions for would give be to the truant a failing grade day for the supplement punishment with detention.
In ruling defendants, for the judge the trial stated that he did not personally agree with the wisdom of rule but did not find it to be patently arbitrary. unreasonable or
The amici curiae join plaintiff in arguing that the defendant district’s rule on unexcused absences violates the pupil’s unexcused substantive due process rights under both State and Federal constitutions and that in this case certain plaintiff’s grades were so affected the rule as to him of substantive due As applied to the agency actions of a State individual, an process Illinois guarantees clause the same rights as does process the due clause of the (See Fourteenth Amendment. Stat., Ill. Const., I, Ann. §2, Ill. art. Commentary (Smith- Constitutional 1971).) Hurd We are not any directly advised of case in point with the instant case. process
Both due protect against “life, clauses deprivation liberty or property without due of law.” The rights substantive which plaintiff claims to have been violated in this case are incident to the receipt of an education. The provides, Illinois Constitution of 1970 in part:
“Goal-Free Schools.
A fundamental goal People the State the educational developmental persons all capacities. to the limits of their
The State shall provide system high efficient quality public educational institutions and services. in public through secondary Const., schools shall Ill. level be free.” art. X, §1.) 725, 95 Lopez, Goss v. 419 U.S. L. Ed. the Court
affirmed an enjoining order of a district court an Ohio school district from *4 suspending pupils. two A State statute authorized school districts to suspend pupils period days for a not to exceed 10 for misbehavior. legislature imрlemented Neither the district had the nor the school legislation procedural hearing prior with rules for notice and statutes, suspension. provision on Ohio like the Illinois constitutional
607 to a free age were entitled education, youths that all of certain provided knowledge that and skiU reasoned the public The court school education. property by the State was a by guaranteed the education gained ability gain the suspension impaired from school right and that property that suspension, impairing thus knowledge during and skill the reputation pupil’s the right. damage also stated that the court was an alleged the misconduct resulting permanent from a record of rights and liberty. pupil’s property Because the impairment pupil’s of the reasonably defined liberty impaired hearing had without a under been deprived that had of rules held been procedure, of recеipt an procedural rights, of law. Similar incident to the due education, by youth to its would also be granted the State of Illinois protection procedural process. entitled to due Strickland, 1In v. U.S. 43 L. Ed. 2d Wood (1970) brought a suit under 42 U.S.C. on behalf of §1983 suspended pupils, although ruling grounds that no for relief under that case, public statute existed in that the Court stated that school have (D. In v. N. H. procedural rights. both substantive and Cook Edwards 1972), expulsion 341 F. Supp. court invalidated an indеfinite of a intoxicated, public pupil who grounds had arrived at school on the disparity severity penalty damage between the caused by great pupil the infraction was so as to of substantive due process. (5th v. Cir. County Dicta Lee Macon 1974), F.2d expulsion approval also a school indicated an theory. being protected in these rights incident to education Lopez. v. thus granted protection cases were the samе as those in Goss We conclude that as well as rights protected such substantive procedural receipt
In the incident of an the case under consideration attend class impaired opportunity education claimed to be was not the is institutions of receipt grades, but the a measure which considered by employers higher determining who to admit learning impairment of Lopez hire. In the Court noted the deciding who to Goss permanent that arise from employment opportunities educational and is The same true pupil. about derogatory school record of information between Despite analogy that can be drawn grades. of lower however, grades, a pupil’s pupil expulsion effects of the reduction New courts grading process. in the we are most reluctant to intervene within dispensed by a teacher have done so. Where a for court discretion, justification no subjective teacher’s we can see Agricultural & State Connelly University Vermont intervention. pupil at a by a former College (D. 1965), F.Supp. Vt. to readmit compel the institution that the court seeking institution *5 pupil the was alleged pupil ruled to state a cause of action when it failing had been dismissed for a in course which the instructor had early determined in the course flunk pupil regardless to the of his work. opinion The did not disсuss the due clause but process termed the instructor’s actions as arbitrary capricious. grade There the student’s predetermined rather than being subjective determination after a view of all of the provided record. Here the rule for a grade reduction subjective without determination of a teacher. Under these procedure circumstances a grading could be that used would be so palpable as to justify court intervention. appropriate
We deem the test to determine whether a rule such as in application deprive the one issue and its pupils of due substantive process to be that in indicated Cook v. Edwards and Lee v. Macon County Board That is weigh severity Education. test to the of punitive against severity effect of the sanction the of the conduct Here, sanctioned. providing grade the rule for one letter reduction for day eаch missed was harsh. The record indicates that the rule had been hearing, making rescinded at time of the its question validity of moot. Courts are not required questions grant to review of the refusal to declaratory or injunctive sought relief where the relief involves a matter (Thurman Aid, that is now moot. v. Department App. Public 25 Ill. of 502.) may N.E.2d Sometimes a choose to rule reviewing cotut on such a if it question public likely concerns a matter of interest which is upon public guidance. (People reoccur and which officials need Labrenz, Ill. 769.) Although 104 N.E.2d at least some of that present criteria are in the instant we choose not to rule the validity of the rescinded rule because of our reluctance to intervene in the process public in the schools. administering grades of grading the district in defendant in propriety of the action of education, English, photography, physical business on other hаnd, is a must decide. The three teachers who did live issue which we severity. it in full grading apply rule but did not its We considered the plaintiff’s grades by grade find one letter for a do not the reduction year subjects consequence in three of two period quarter of one of him substantive days truancy of to be so harsh as to of plaintiff was somewhat remote. He any damage We note only school to which he year junior college, was admitted the next to a Nevertheless, we deem dropped admission and later out. sought disadvantage grades from the lower to be subsequent might he receive Lopez. damage property right. Goss showing sufficient of substantive due argue deprived that he is Plaintiff and amici curiae is no rational the law because there equal protection truancy. They and the misconduct relationship grades between solely contend on the basis given public must be sсhools rely on an “scholastic attainment.” but No decisions cited State of the Commissioner of Education administrative decision of a rule in turn no That held invalid Jersey New which cites cases. decision public providing that would receive Jersey of a New there day of zero for of unexcused absence. The rule each practice similar advocated here appears condemned rule of acceptablе alternative to the harsher being witness Midkiff opinion school district. from another quoted defendant had opinion any system grading which had stated that Commissioner’s system limitations into incorporate disciplinary and to sanctions authority compounded the cites difficulty. educational text holding system that a commingling disciplinary sanctions within the grading sound policy. not educational *6 best determining The courts are not forum educational for a poliсy. In whether there is rational basis between determining grades misconduct to we must determine given of and the them systems represent. high grading what the Most school taken to in with commingled pupil have factors of conduct scholastic attainment rendering physical It is to in education grades. grading difficult see how sensibly pupil’s can be being given done without consideration to the subjects conduct in and effort. These factors are considered other often students, Particularly inept give higher well. it is to a among common grade to try laggard those who attend classand than to the truant. Several and testifying they teachers here indicated considered effort plaintiff is a determining grades. Truancy conduct in lack of effort and was, therefore, sufficiently here exhibited a lack of effort. a rational There to truancy and his grade given connection between the reduction he was satisfy and substantive due requirements protection of both equal Fleur, L. Ed. 2d In v. La 414U.S. Cleveland of public 94 S. a school rule Ct. ruled Cleveland invalid months required begin maternity that all leave five pregnant teachers return three after delivery date not until months expected before and the birth of the child. The court held that rule created irrebuttable necessarily that a presumption which was not true teacher contends, analogy, by incapacitatеd delivery. months before five an invalid on absences creates that defendant district’s rule unexcused “academic achievement” pupil’s that the presumption irrebuttable by period. class The quarter missing letter for one reduced one an exact presumption as an irrebuttable teachers the rule not treated give to class as a mandate by missing one but damage amount done mitigated the effect rendering grade in and truancy to the consideration of the rule a partial exercise of discretion. La Fleur the court noted that the effect of unduly penalized the rule deciding teacher from to have a child. operated Here the rule part to sanction misconduct on the plaintiff in a manner that we have deemed to be unduly not harsh.
Amici curiae contend that a powerless school district in this State is impose any upon sanction a puрil truancy. provision for The of the Illinois School concerning Code compulsory (Ill. attendance Stat. Rev. ch. 122, par. 26—1 seq.) imposes et a duty upon parents and custodians of children of ages certain to “cause” the children to attend school and imposes a criminal parents sanction those and custodians who fail to do so. legislation provides The for district truant who officers have duty to investigate truancies and complaints against to file criminal those parents and custodians whom believe to be violation legislation. Amici power curiae concede that districts have to make rules and regulations regard (Ill. discipline Rev. Stat. ch. 20.5, pars. 24). however, They argue, specific grant 10— 24— power portions compulsory of the School concerning Code attendance should be legislative power construed as a intent that the granted therе was only power punish truancy intended to be the following the principle expressio (Bowes v. unius est exclusio alterius. City Chicago, 15.) 3 Ill. legislative 120 N.E.2d two The provisions areas, cover different however. provisions for rules discipline give power the district punish pupils. provision compulsory attendance legal obligation parents creates on custodians provides for its legislation giving enforcement. The power districts disciplinary еmpowers punish to make rules them to pupils for unexcused absences.
Plaintiff maintains that the district’s rule on unexcused absences and the action of the district in reducing plaintifFs grades violate section *7 I article of the Illinois 1970. is headed Constitution of That section rights “Limitation of with Penalties After Conviction” and listed other pertaining applicable to criminal It is here. The State proceedings. not argues Board of Education that district’s rule was invalid defendant it ability because interfered with the district’s to maintain services for 1973, 122, 4.01.) It handicapped (Ill. par. children. Rev. Stat. ch. 14— 1973, “maladjusted (Ill. contends that truants be children” Rev. Stat. could 122, par. 1.03) ch. rather require diagnosis who treatment based on 14— than a would applied equally pupils. requirement sanction to all Such a any make it difficult In event any objective disciplinary to have rules. such showing plaintiff maladjusted any there is no that child nor that wаs children had been affected the rule. action complaint
Defendants maintain that the failed to state a cause of denial injunction declaratory They argue an that the for either or relief.
611
that
contends
dismiss the
was error.
the motion to
they did not
that
because
ruling
now raise the issue of
defendants cannot
City
v.
North
People
Village
Lake
citing
ex rel.
cross-appeal,
Bluff
disposition we
142,
Chicago,
App.
Ill.
3d
TRAPP, J.,P. concurs. CRAVEN, Mr. dissenting: JUSTICE exactly opinion The states for a result majority persuasively a case opposite the conclusion reached. day the school district that of unexcused required rule of for each
absence, makeup work without credit and the academic be done grade per superintendent be letter class. Either the or the lowered one principal in his the absence was discretion would determine whether If excused or unexcused. determination was made absence unexcused, was the teachers be notified were to be would and the this at arbitrary policy lowered. The record shows that was enforced particular times at all In this at a but not times. one teacher grade; policy vocational did not lower the center follow the nоt —did only way. other half Each of applied policy three teachers involved with them that rule of the interfered their thought testified school prerogative it harsh. as a teacher and that was proper that majority opinion courts are not forum argue seems to districts, I It interfering agree. with the affairs of school internal determined, however, rights was are not shed long ago constitutional (Tinker Independent through entrance door. v. Des Moines 503, 731, 89 733.) District, S. Ct. Community School 393 U.S. 21 L. Ed. 2d applies It has Amendment also been determined that the Fourteenth all of the States as protects against States and of us instrumentalities (West Virginia well the State itself. This includes boards of education. Barnette, S. L. Ed. Education v. 319 U.S. Board of name, good 1178.) person’s Ct. It has that a also been determined I honor, protectible interest. know of reputation, integrity or constitutes Roth, 408 U.S. Regents in this no de minimis rule area. L. Ed. 2d find 95 S. Ct. we 42 L. Ed. Lopez, Goss U.S. to, and, my opinion, applicable guidelines basic constitutional of, right has a determinative case. Plaintiff constitutional any arbitrary rule without right away by constitutional taken *8 process. semblance of The rule itself was a denial of procedural due weight substantive due We are not invited to look at the of the only sought interest asserted but determine whether interest protected protection. as require of such a nature rеduced; s record is plaintiff quarterly grades were the final quarterly grades adversely clear that the reduction of the affect measure grade. purports The final constitutes a record that fact judicial academic attainment. We should take notice of the prospective learning as institutions concern employers higher well with true academic themselves achievement. County
I circuit judgment Livingston would reverse court of judgment declaring and remand this case with directions to enter a rule invalid.
THE PEOPLE OF THE ILLINOIS, STATE OF Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MILTON WILLINGHAM,
V. Defendant-Appellant.
Fourth District No. 13089 Opinion May filed